The Breakroom > The Water Cooler
Ban of sales of IC engined cars to support electric cars by 2040
Mike E.:
I'm not worried about any ban, especially 20 odd years from now; just another political storm in a teacup. Follow the money trail. As long as there is profit to be made in fossil fuels, conventional vehicles will be made and driven somewhere on the planet. As for government bans, none will stop the flow of air born pollution at any border, lol.
vtsteam:
It's funny people are so focused on forcing conversion of transportation energy sources, and ignore something as simple to alter as energy sources for building and process heat.
And to quote Bill Todd in the first post:
"As of 26 Nov 2016 this was supplied by 57% Gas, 20% nuclear, 8% coal." Which is 85% big time fueling. Electricity is merely a medium for transmission of combustion and fission processes. It's a metaphorical hydraulic fluid flowing from the pumps of the real engines.
Transportation benefits from liquid fuels, because it has high energy density and can flow through a pipe from a tank in a compact mobile mechanism. Solids don't work well there, and gasses don't either because they have low energy density, unless under extreme pressure, a hazard in a moving vehicle.
Fluids are NOT necessary for producing heat in a stationary facility, though they are commonly used there. Whether that's a home heating furnace, industrial heating plant, or even a steam plant for producing electricity. Solids work as well, and that is the form of most unrefined (and therefore energy efficient) biofuels.
If the focus was diverted from altering fuels for transportation to altering fuels for heating and solid fuel steam powered electric generation, to solid biofuels, a great savings in fossil CO2 release would be the benefit. As well as a great reduction in the use of valuable and finite supply liquid fuels best suited to transportation.
awemawson:
But Steve, the U.K. Politicians are apparently motivated by being seen to be trying to lower pollution levels in our towns and cites, and no doubt they are correct in thinking the twice daily increase in levels during peak times is mainly due to internal combustion engines.
You are right that combined heat and power would be far easier to implement, but it wouldn't score the Brownie Points that they are chasing!
Jo:
Yet another case of Politicians opening their mouth without understanding what they are saying :loco:
We did a study at work to look at the consequences of our staff charging their cars when they came to work... So 1KWh = 3 miles travel, average travel to work = 50 miles = 16.6KWh recharge required. Easy you say you can do that from a 13A plug socket over 8 hours but there are 200 parking spaces = 3.2MW extra load over the working day = an extra 400KWh electric load per hour. Not only is there no electrical infrastructure in the car park to provide it but the feed to the site itself is not big enough to take that additional load and our site electric pricing is based on peak loads :bugeye:
Lets start with ALL politicians replacing their cars with Electric cars (no Hybrids) immediately, then they will get to understand the practicalities, of this latest idea of theirs. :coffee:
Jo
BillTodd:
Thankyou jo , you get it
The real problem here is not the electric vehical or battery, it is the power supply chain. The electrical infrastructure simply cannot cope with such a significant increase in load
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version